06 March 2007

25 February 2007

"And as a child /I danced like it was 1999 /My dreams were wild /The promise of this new world /Would be mine / Now I am throwing off the carelessness of youth / To listen to an inconvenient truth" -- Melissa Etheridge, "I Need to Wake Up"

Shameful! When Melissa Etheridge took the stage at the Oscars Ceremony this evening, the academy flashed approximately a dozen do-good slogans urging Americans to help stop global warming. As Ms. Etheridge sang her nominated song "I Need to Wake Up" from the woefully inaccurate and alarmist mockumentary An Inconvenient Truth, easy to read slogans flashed across the screen behind her:

-Don't drive if you don't need to-Take public transportation-Use light rail when you can-Walk or ride your bikeetc

Helping to preserve the environment is a noble, if somewhat misguided, endeavor. Many, many good meaning and well intended people have worked hard to reduce or eliminate their carbon emissions, buying into the misinformation Hollywood is feeding them. Nonetheless, reducing America's dependence on foreign oil is, in my humble opinion, a matter of serious national security.

However, does anyone actually believe that a single celebrity sitting in that audience- a single academy member- a single technician -- does anyone actually believe that any of those people would ever even consider using public transportation? Light rail? Walking?

Of course not. John Travolta told Joan Rivers on the red carpet that he flew his private jet from NYC for the ceremony. And the line of Hummer SUV limos appeared to wrap around the block. Of course, we all know George Clooney drives that little hybrid-- But he gets paid to do so!

Still, Melissa sang about America's need to wake up and smell the environment-destroying oil. A few facts for you Melissa: Hybrid cards are expensive! Public transportation is available to about 12% of the total population. Light rail is available to less then 5%. I know it's hard to understand why the common people who work 40-50+ hours weekly don't have time to bike or walk to work, but trust me, we don't. When you start getting from one gig to the next on a bike, let me know- maybe you will have an ounce of credibility then. Till then, enjoy your tricked-out tour bus. You've earned it!

Per usual, Hollywood wants us, the great unwashed, to save their environment so they can go to sleep at night and forget about their SUVs, private jets and tour buses-- not to mention the tons of shit movies and music we are subjected to annually. Meanwhile, mega-celebs like Bono want more our tax money to be used to feed the world and end the crises in Africa. But he can't be bothered to pay his own share of taxes.

24 February 2007

"The Boston City Council welcomes public participation either through
direct contact with the Council offices or through testimony at
public hearings of the various City Council committees. We hope that the information below will provide you
with information about how to have your voice heard on your issues of
concern."- City of Boston, City Council Website

After 23 days, City Council President Maureen Feeney finally found time in her busy schedule to have some low-level, tax-funded assistant answer my questions. Sort of. Although I made a series of direct inquiries, none were actually addressed and I was referred to the officials at Code Enforcement for clarification on the issue (note numerous spelling errors):

I write on behalf of Council President Feeney who asked that
I share with you her perspective on the proposal to collect outstanding fees
for trash violations. I apolagize for the delay in responding to your
message.

This issue is a critical one for many of our city’s
neighborhoods. Repeat offenders, many of whom are responsible for the
bulk of these violations, have plagued some of our densest neighborhoods with
overflowing trash. This leads to serious concerns for public health, such
as asthma, and invites the possibility of rodent infestation. The Council
President supports any effort, including the one she discussed with Emily
Rooney, to exercise the cities responsibility to protect its residents from these
quality of life hazards. Using the web as a resource to encourage violators
to abide by the law in the interest of the public good is a reasonable
proposal. I applaud my colleague, Councillor Mike Ross, for his
leadership on this issue.

As to some of your specific questions, I would encourage you
to contact officials from Code Enforcement who might be best suited to answer
your questions.

Thank you.

Justin Holmes

Chief of Policy and Communications

Huh? If a local voter can't even get a response from one of the lowest elected officials on the political totem pole when he tries to have his voice heard (in a small city like Boston, none the less), what hope is there an a state or national scale?

I will respond by requesting a meeting with Herself. I would like to get a clear understanding of exactly how this trash program will be enacted and at what cost to tax payers. However, I am more concerned with the total lack of commitment and communication I am receiving.

Meanwhile, our city council is wasting time condemning the U.S. presence in the Middle East and the Iraq War. Listen up Mr. Turner and Ms. Feeney: We pay QUALIFIED officials to do that! Not lowly district councilors!

22 February 2007

"I want you to observe, that those who cry the loudest about their
disillusionment, about the failure of virtue, the futility of reason,
the impotence of logic - are those who have achieved the full, exact,
logical result of the ideas they preached, so mercilessly logical that
they dare not identify it. In a world that proclaims the non-existence
of the mind, the moral righteousness of rule by brute force, the
penalizing of the competent in favour of the incompetent, the sacrifice
of the best to the worst - in such a world, the best have to turn
against society and have to become it's deadliest enemies." - Ayn Rand

It's been a while since I have been able to update the blog or make any new postings. I've had some technical difficulties with the host (TypePad) that have been taking up most of my blog time. However, there will be some new posts this weekend, including an open letter to Mitt Romney; the first in a series of "articles" titled Lessons for Liberals, and possibly a rant about how miserable the city of Boston has handled the cleanup from the last snow storm.

I want to alert everyone that there will be some changes soon: I will have my own URL and blog-space independent of any hosts such as Blogger or TypePad. My current host is fine, but I find these services to be somewhat limited. I will also be adding a new blog called TWANG, focusing on the current state of country music.

As soon as I have the new blog up and running I will post the information here. Hope to have it ready within 10 days....

17 February 2007

Seventeen days ago, I sent an email to the newly elected Boston City Council President, Maureen Feeney, requesting clarification of her statements made during an interview on a local television show. (My original post is here). The interview focused solely on the City Council's recent initiative to use new methods to coerce "trash violators" into paying overdue fines and to clean up what they consider to be unsightly and unhealthy garbage.

Two of the new methods give the Council the authority to confiscate private property and shame overdue payees via a website listing naming the "trash offenders".
My main concern with these new methods revolves around the expense and cost to all Boston residents as well as to the draconian method in which such fines a levied in this city. I also called out a specific moment when Councilwoman Feeney and her interviewer, Emily Rooney, seemed to agree that the fines, which range from $25 to $100 for a first time offender, are modest, and both women suggested that anyone could afford to pay them.

I still have not received any word from the Councilwoman on this issue. So, I have decided to put her hypotheses to the test, and see if I can shame Ms. Feeney into responding to one of the common electorate. I am still hoping for an answer to my request. I am sure the Council President is busy. So am I. However, in the private sector, where most of us must earn our money without looting it from taxpayers, I would lose business if I responded to my customers the way the current Council President seems to respond to the very people who finance her position.

11 February 2007

"The state released data last week showing that nearly 40 percent of the state's urban students...need more than four years to complete the courses necessary to graduate high-school. More than one-fifth of them drop out"

"[the South End residents] are feeding the obnoxious cliche of the entitled, overbearing busy body who cares more about parking privileges than public education." - Susan Ryan-Vollmar, South End News- 8 February 2007.

In a recent editorial concerning the big parking controversy, Susan Ryan-Vollmar, Editor-in-Chief of the local neighborhood rag, The South End News laments the fuss we snooty, entitled Worcester Street residents are raising regarding a proposal to turn a blacktop playing field, which doubles as a 55 space parking lot in the evenings and weekends, into a "soccer field" for Hurley School. In doing so, Ms. Ryan-Vollmar misses another opportunity to focus on what is really happening here on Worcester St.

I live directly across the street from the parking lot in question. I have seen the children playing in the lot, and I have long contended there should be an alternative for them. In fact, when I first heard about the proposed field, I was 100% behind the proposal. However, after reviewing the facts of the proposal, and looking beyond the smears the parents have thrown our way, I have come to the solid conclusion that this soccer field will be bad for the neighborhood, and not a good alternative for the students.

First, I want to address the outrageous suggestion that we, the residents, property owners, and tax payers have no right to raise our voices in this issue. It's true that we have no right to access the private property of the school. It's true that we can not coerce the school officials in this matter. But to suggest that we do not have the right to voice our concern is ludicrous. All we did was ask to be heard on this issue. The residents of Worcester street have done exactly the right thing- they approached the school and city officials and asked them to discuss an issue that will impact the neighborhood significantly. The school wisely obliged, and revised the plan to address neighborhood concern. The school can hardly afford to lose neighborhood support.

My opposition to the current plan, which is getting worse instead of getting better with every iteration, is the trade-off. Hurley School is proposing replacing a 55 space lot, which doubles as a parking lot, into a "soccer field" for the children. The soccer field would not consist of natural grass or soil. It would consist merely of artificial turf covering a layer of dirt and asphalt. In my mind, replacing the lot with a legitimate park, or playground would be worth the loss of the spaces. A park or playing field would be maintained by the residents as well as the school, as the parking lot is now.

In the winter, after the major snowstorms, it is the residents who help dig out the parking lot- mainly to get to their cars out and to keep the lot from icing up. The relationship is symbiotic. Once the artificial turf is installed, what motivation will anyone have for helping to maintain the field? Surely, a few residents will help maintain the area, but they will never be able to equal the strength of 30-40 residents shoveling the lot.

The school has also not answered the question: how will funds be raised to maintain the field? They are having trouble raising money to build the field. How will they maintain it? It's my humble suspicion that the field will deteriorate quickly in the severe weather conditions of Boston, and will become a blight in the neighborhood. The current lot is not the most attractive feature of the street, but it serves a valuable purpose. Again, I don;t believe the trade-off is worthwhile.

The loss of 55 spaces (I count 60) is a legitimate concern for our neighborhood. The South End News's contention that the lack of parking is a fake issue is nonsense. The lot serves as overflow and fills up slowly, but most evenings it is full to capacity by 10 PM. I witness this nightly. The effect the loss of parking will have on the area is not trivial, and should be discussed. Additionally, every Sunday, the streets fill up with double parked cars driving to the three churches on our street. The lot helps ease a lot of that congestion. Without it, the aggravation toward the church-goers will grow considerably.

Finally, if there is to be any reasonable debate on this issue, people like Ms. Ryan-Vollmar need to listen to what the residents are saying and doing, and stop accusing us of putting our petty parking spaces before public education. This lot will not in any way help solve any of the public education issues at hand. I realize that it's easy for simple minds to make that assertion and feel good about themselves, but it's a dishonest and disingenuous approach. What is wrong with civic discussion and debate? While I am not happy with the direction of the plans for the field, I am pleased to see the school and the neighborhood residents discussing the issue.

10 February 2007

"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check, and its relief not the goal of existence - man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's alter for anyone's cause - life is not one huge hospital" - Ayn Rand

There are only two actions in this world: create or destroy.

There are only two types of individuals in this world: creators and destroyers. There is no in-between. One either creates, or one destroys.

A creator is not merely someone who provides items of value to the world, he is a man does so on his own merit, without taking that which is not willfully given. He funds his creations using his own talent, hard work, and thinking mind. Investment might be willingly provided, and accepted, if both parties agree to the terms and the value of the creation.

A destroyer, on the other hand, takes what is not rightfully his and attempts to destroy the creators. He provides nothing of value to the world, sees no joy in the work of the creators. He forces the creator to become an agent in his own destruction. Murder and theft are the final consequences of the destroyers.

An sculptor might be seen as a creator to most. He uses his talent, hard work and thinking mind to create an object of value. In doing so, he finds satisfaction, and happiness in his creation. If he can place a value on the object and sell it to someone who sees equal value in it, then he can rest assured that his values are in line and moral. If, however, that same sculptor accepts one penny of government subsidy, or steals even the smallest amount of clay for his work, he becomes, irrevocably, a destroyer. The smallest amount of clay represents a value to the person from whom it was taken. Robbing the provider limits his income and prevents him from achieving his goals by his own means. Accepting a government subsidy, even for food, represents the same destruction. Nothing is more destructive than taking money out of someone else's pocket for your own needs or wants. The toll paid in other people's misery and destruction might seem abject, but the destruction is real.

Imagine a single mother, struggling to make it on her own merits, with two children to feed. She rents an apartment in a low-income section of a city so she is close to her job and her children's school. She works 2 jobs to keep her children fed and in school. She is a creator. Working 2 jobs- contributing to businesses or services that people value- and living her life on her own merits. She earns only slightly more than enough to keep her off welfare, not that she would accept it, but she earns just enough to pay for those who do qualify for welfare. She sees her jobless neighbors receive those monthly checks, a percentage of which this woman has paid.

How much more could this woman do for herself and her children if she was not forced to hand over a percentage of her income to those who do not produce and would have a hand in her destruction. With her limited savings, she can't afford the service for her old used car, and is one broken muffler away from losing her job due to lack of transportation, and not being able to pay her rent. She is only one major expense away from destruction. Surely, the $7,000+ she unwillingly pays to the welfare of her neighbors and fellow countrymen (including college education for other people's children) would be useful to her.

A college student, living in an expensive condo in New York that is financed by her parents is not a destroyer. The money is not barbarically taken from others. It is willingly provided. The family living next door, on welfare and subsidies is the true destroyer. As are the millionaires who loot other people's money for their own gain. As are the environmentalists who sit in trees, producing nothing yet demanding that oil companies cease accepting the profits from their hard work and dedication- never understanding where this world would be without the oil companies. As are the politicians who willingly spend the money of their constituents with little regard for the human cost.

There is only one choice in life: create, or destroy.

The most inspiring consequence in life -- true proof that in this world, and in this country, anything is possible -- is that, no matter how much the destroyers loot and kill- the creators continue to create, and their creations continue to dominate our lives.

"The only misrepresentations could be coming from the administration, and one would only have to wonder why. . . . I know it's not coming from the resident of the United States because he has impressed upon me over and over again the need for me to have the security that I need." House Speaker Nanci Pelosi (D)

Forgive me for not completely buying into the rhetoric and attacks on Speaker Pelosi and her recent request that she be granted the same security provisions as her predecessor- i.e. access to a jet from the Air Force One fleet. No fan of Ms. Pelosi myself, I still maintain respect for her position and her prominence in the succession of leadership in this country.

Though not affiliated officially with either political party, my preference for fiscal conservatism, small government, and an obsession with facts often places me on the same side as the Republican party. I usually find myself defending the Republican leaders more often than those of the Democrats, because the latter is usually much better at spreading slander via the main stream media. However, this "debate" is a perfect example that both sides have plenty of mud, and the means to sling it.

The Republicans, most of whom remain anonymous, accuse the Speaker and her aides of threatening to cry "sexism", and contend that the requests for a bigger plane are founded solely in Ms. Pelosi's desire to transport her friends and family with herself between her home district in San Francisco and Washington, DC. However, they have been unable to substantiate the accusations, and the Speaker has firmly made the reasons for her requests clear:

"It has nothing to do with family and friends and everything to do about security''(Source, Mercury News)

At this point, there is no reason to suggest that the intentions are not true. The flight from D.C. to San Francisco is quite a bit longer than to Illinois, where the previous Speaker flew. A jet that can fly the current Speaker to her District non-stop seems to me to be a reasonable request. Her job is important enough, and difficult enough, to warrant it. Additionally, every take-off and landing adds to the security problems and costs. I would imagine that an assessment would show that there is more cost to the taxpayers for an Air Force One jet, carrying key U.S. leaders, to land and take off, than to simply fly straight through to its destination.

The President seems to agree.

Stop the smearing. Allow the pentagon to protect the Speaker of the House.

09 February 2007

"We're talking about people ...tuned out to the world
around them. They're walking into speeding cars. They're walking into
buses. They're walking into one another and it's creating a number of
fatalities that have been documented right here in the city." - NY State Senator Carl Kruger (D).

Night of the living dead? Zombies attack? Hardly. Sen. Carl Kruger is referring to the iPOD, cell phone, and blackberry users who, if you hear him tell it, have taken over the city, leaving death and destruction in their wake.

To address this epidemic, and further restrict the liberties of citizens living in the greatest city in the world, Mr. Kruger has proposed a bill that, if passed, would prohibit citizens from using these devices while crossing the street. The fine for a violation? $100. Finally, New York's finest can focus on the real problem.

Pedestrian deaths supposedly linked to distraction from personal devices is running at 3%, according to the USDOT (PDF). Alcohol related pedestrian deaths, on the other hand, account for a staggering 40%!

But don't worry. It's only a matter of time until they come after your alcohol.